• Proceedings of the Korean Institute of Navigation and Port Research Conference
• /
• 2013.10a
• /
• pp.196-198
• /
• 2013

Navigation of ships is mainly being performed through high sea, but inbound/outbound vessels to a port are characteristic of going via territorial sea of coastal countries. At territorial sea, all ships are under the influence of korea' sovereignty and enjoy innocent passage on the basis of UN Convention on the Law at the Sea(UNCLOS). But in the practical points of view, we want to examine legally on these issues, because we have no clear criteria for reasons about anchor except anchorage and innocent passage at territorial sea prescribed at national laws, moreover it can be used maliciouly.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.280-289
• /
• 2022

Internal Waters refer to the waters located at the landward side of a baseline and is completely under the sovereignty of a coastal state. However, the right of innocent passage of foreign-flag vessels is recognized in internal waters that are newly incorporated by establishing a straight baseline. Korea has a massive Internal Waters on its south-western coast where the straight baseline is adopted and has a wide Internal Waters that allows innocent passage. A foreign-flag vessel navigating the internal waters must be properly managed according to the interest of the coastal states such as the fishing·safety·security·environment around the Korean coast. Additionally, Territorial Sea comes under the sovereignty of a coastal state and it is a very important sea area for managing the interests of the coastal states. However, several collision accidents involving illegally anchored or drifted foreign-flag vessels have been occurring recently in the Korean Internal Waters and Territorial Sea, and such accidents are a threat to its interests. Thus, this paper analyzes the cases of collision of foreign-flag vessels that anchored or drifted without authorization, and examines domestic·international laws on the passage of foreign-flag vessel through Internal Waters and Territorial Waters. Finally, this paper suggests that unauthorized anchoring of foreign-flag vessels in Korean Internal Waters and Territorial Water violates the requirements for innocent passage and this violation is punishable according to related Acts; a desirable improvement plan for the legal system of passage through Internal Waters and Territorial Waters.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.43
• /
• pp.29-55
• /
• 2018

Arctic sea ice has been retreating as a result of the global warming. Arctic sea ice extent for April 2018 averaged 13.71 million square kilometers. This figure shows far less sea ice compared to the average extent from 1981 to 2010. Meanwhile, 287 times of maritime transits through the Northwest Passage have been made during the 2017 and the first ship traversed the Northern Sea Route without the assistant of ice-breaker in August 2017. Commercialization of the Arctic Passage means significant economic and strategic advantages by shortening the distance. In this article, 'Arctic Passage' means Northern Sea Route along the Arctic coast of Russia and Northwest Passage crossing Canadian Arctic Ocean. As climate changes, the potential feasibility of the Arctic Passage has been drawing international attention. Since navigation in this area remains hazardous in some aspects, IMO adopted Polar Code to promote safe, secure and sustainable shipping through the Arctic Passage. Futhermore, Russia and Canada regulate foreign vessels over the maritime zones with the authority to unilaterally exercise jurisdiction pursuant to the Article 234 of UNCLOS. The dispute over the navigation regime of the arctic passage materialized with Russia proclaimed Dmitrii Laptev and Sannikov Straits as historically belong to U.S.S.R. in the mid 1960s and Canada declared that the waters of the passage are historic internal waters in 1973 for the first time. So as to support their claims, In 1985, Russia and Canada established straight baseline including Northern Sea Route and Northwest Passage. The United States has consistently protested that the Northern Sea Route and Northwest Passage are straits used for international navigation which are subject to the regime of transit passage. Firstly, it seems that Russia and Canada do not meet the basic requirements for acquiring a historic title. Secondly, since the Law of the Sea had adopted before the establishment of straight baseline over the Russian Arctic Archipelago and the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, Ships can exercise at least the right of innocent passage. Lastly, Northern Sea Route and Northwest Passage have fulfilled the both geographical and functional criteria pertaining to the strait used for international navigation under the international law. Especially, should the arctic passage become commercially viable, it can be expected to accumulate the functional criterion. Russia and Canada regulate the ships navigate in their maritime zones by adopting the higher degree of an environmental standard than generally accepted international rules and standard mainly under the Article 234 of UNCLOS. However, the Article 234 must be interpreted restrictively as this contains constraint on the freedom of navigation. Thus, it is reasonable to consider that the Article 234 is limited only to the EEZ of coastal states. Therefore, ships navigating in the Arctic Passage with the legal status of the territorial sea and the international straits under the law of the sea have the right of innocent passage and transit passage as usual.

• Proceedings of the Korean Institute of Navigation and Port Research Conference
• /
• v.1
• /
• pp.91-96
• /
• 2006

International law provides for fundamental navigational rights called the right of transit passage in international straits as defined by UNCLOS. However, the Australian government published Marine Notice 8/2006 and the associated Part 54 of Australian Marine Orders which requires ships transiting the Torres Strait to engage the services of a pilot and imposes significant penalties for non-compliance on the basis of the IMO MEPC 133(53) which is just a resolution as a recommendation. This paper aims to study legal aspects in UNCLOS on the pilotage in the Torres Strait following the extension of the Great Barrier Reef PSSA neighbouring Australia.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.2
• /
• pp.75-111
• /
• 2020

The civilian drone world has evolved in recent years from one dominated by hobbyists to growing involvement by companies seeking to profit from unmanned flight in everything from infrastructure inspections to drone deliveries that are already subject to regulations. Drone flight under the property right relation with the land owner would be deemed legal on the condition that expeditious and innocent passage of drone flight over the land be assured. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) enshrines the concept of innocent passage through a coastal state's territorial sea. Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal state. A vessel in innocent passage may traverse the coastal state's territorial sea continuously and expeditiously, not stopping or anchoring except in force majeure situations. However, the disturbances caused by drone flight may be removed, which is defined as infringement against the constitutional interest of personal rights. For example, aggressive infringement against privacy and personal freedom may be committed by drone more easily than ever before, and than other means. The cost-benefit analysis, however, has been recognjzed as effective criteria regarding the removal of disturbances or injunction decision. Applying that analysis, the civil action against such infringement may not find suitable basis for making a good case. Because the removal of such infringement through civil actions may result in only the deletion of journal article. The injunction of drone flight before taking the information would not be obtainable through civil action, Therefore, more detailed and meticulous regulation and criteria in public law domain may be preferable than civil action, at present time. It may be suitable for legal stability and drone industry to set up the detailed public regulations restricting the free flight of drone capable of acquiring visual information amounting to the infrigement against the right of personal information security.

• Proceedings of KOSOMES biannual meeting
• /
• 2003.11a
• /
• pp.35-44
• /
• 2003

Considering possible legal and policy problems with regard to the Cheju Strait, a central issue is whether the Cheju Strait should be treated as Korean territorial sea or an international strait The claim that the strait is territorial sea has been based on the use of a straight baseline method of dermarcation With the use of straight baseline, Korea claims that the breadth of the Cheju Strait is only 20.7 miles at its narrowest point and therefore the strait becomes the territorial sea of Korea. The consideration cf marine pollution has weighed heavily in claiming the Cheju Strait as territorial sea. Pollution resulting from the accidents cf tankers caused by fire, collision, or stranding in the Cheju Strait and the Korea Strait would be enormous, affecting the entire coastal waters of the south coasts cf Korea's mainland and Japan's Tsushima Islands areas. Catastrophic pollution in the Cheju Strait could also come from the accidents cf large-size oil tankers passing through the Korea Strait from the Malacca Strait Although the Korean government considers the geographic and socioeconomic conditions sufficient to justify Korea's claim of the Cheju Strait as territorial sea, it believes that declaring it so would raise considerable legal conflicts with maritime states. In view of the legal difficulties and the need to meet the problems arising from the growing vessel traffic in the Cheju Strait, the sea lanes and traffic separation schemes may be considered an alternative to the internationalization of the Cheju Strait Even if the Korean government dose not do so, the regime of innocent passage should be applied to vessels passing through the Strait and should not suspend innocent passage through the Strait. Therefore, the Korean government needs to have a more legal, pragmatic, functional and managerial approach than a purely sovereign and selfish approach to the solution of legal matters of the Cheju strait For this purpose, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea would serve as a guide and also self-restraint and cooperative approaches would become norms governing the resolution of the law of the sea issues in the Cheju Strait.

• The Journal of Fisheries Business Administration
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• pp.45-64
• /
• 1993

The law of territorial sea is a fundamental law by which the width of sovereign domain of a coastal state is determined. The P.R.China'a regime on the territorial sea was established through the Declaration on China's Ttrritorial Sea of 1958 and the P.R.China's Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone Law of 1992. And the P.R.China's consistent policy on the territorial sea can be summarized as follows ; \circled1 The adoption of the straight baseline and 12 nautical miles of the territorial sea width, \circled2 The foreign merchant vessels can enjoy the right of innocent passage, while requesting for prior permission for the foreign military vessels on the entry into territorial sea. \circled3 The Chiungchow Strait and the Bohai Bay are claimed as the internal waters. \circled4 Enlistment of the whole coastal islands including the Taiwan. 12 nautical miles of the territorial sea width can be recognized as lawfull with respect to the 1982 UNLOS Convention. But the P.R.China's Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone Law of 1992 contains some problems on the legality viewed in the light of customary international law. Firstly, it can be said that the adoption of simple straight baseline is not reasonable, and it must be investigated closely on the hidden intention of China. Secondly, there involved some possibility of international dispute on making Tung Tao which is 69 nautical miles apart from the mainland of a basepoint and on making the Bohai Bay of a historic bay. And also public notification of all basepoints for the straight baselines is necessary to meet the requirement of customary international law, Thirdly, two military zones established unilaterally in 1950 are illegal with respect to the customary international law, and they must be repealed deservedly. Fourthly, there have a lot of restrictions on the innocent passage even for foreign merchant vessels by the municipal law such as the Maritime Traffic Safety Law. As a conclusion, the P.R.China's territorial sea regime contains some illegal elements such as unilateral expansion of the maritime sovereignty or jurisdiction. In order to meet the general principle of the international law, the P.R.China's territorial sea policy must be modified on the basis of multilateral agreement with the states concerned. And Korea, as a state with opposite, has a definite right to take countermeasure agaist the P.R.China's contiguous zone.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.40
• /
• pp.115-130
• /
• 2016

The security environment surrounding the East Asian seas is rapidly changing due to the naval arms race among coastal states. The arms race is likely to worsen the security dilemma of the countries involved, thus increasing the chances for armed conflicts. It is too early to tell how the contemporary naval arms race in the region will evolve. But, for sure, the level of uncertainty is increasingly becoming high and intense. At the same time, there is emerging a legal warfare or lawfare among the rival countries. In particular, the United States and China have been involved in a serious debate about the nature and scope of the right of innocent passage and freedom of navigation in other countries' maritime zones. In collaboration with its regional allies, the United States has also put normative pressures on China with its excessive claims in the South China Sea. The latest arbitral tribunal case between the Philippines and China illustrates the point. With both arms race and normative competition in play, the future of East Asian maritime security will remain very complex and uncertain.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.179-185
• /
• 2013

UNCLOS recognizes the right of innocent passage in the ocean but grants jurisdiction and governance to the state of the flag the vessel flies. However, by granting the right to determine vessel's nationality to each country in UNCLOS and by practically consenting inconsistency with the ownership and the state of flag has made the keeping of maritime order quite difficult. Especially, acknowledging the exclusive rights of the flag state on criminal jurisdiction hinders the owner state from exercising its rights and exposes the problem of not taking into account the opinion of the affected state party. This study addresses these issues and examines international regulations on vessels and flag states, mainly UNCLOS, and provides case studies on how criminal jurisdiction is determined when accidents occur at sea. Furthermore, it takes a deeper look into the mutual assistance system in criminal matters and proposes some alternatives on how to overcome these issues.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.45
• /
• pp.60-90
• /
• 2019

The use of the high seas are supported by the two pillars of customary principles --the freedom of navigation and the flag state control on its vessels, which are codified in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. There have been attempts to limit and retrain the two pillars as maritime regimes are newly created to address new maritime threats, while coastal stares' control over the seas expand. The pillars have been created over thousands years since human beings took to the sea and have served as a foundation to use the oceans peacefully and orderly. Therefore, any retreat or exception from these principles would undermine the fundamental framework for the use of the oceans and eventually these regimes would be subject to control of maritime powers. In conclusion, new maritime regimes such as the sanction measures on North Korea should be enforced within the framework of international law and comply with the fundamental principles such as innocent passage and the freedom of navigation at the high seas.